The library system where I work is under attack again from a self-righteous mob of censors claiming moral outrage as justification for their campaign to remove books from the library. Libraries oppose censorship, so we highlight banned and challenged books every September to celebrate this principle. It seems these authoritarian control freaks perceived such displays as year-round endorsement of the challenged content, and started a campaign to purge the community of smut.
To be honest, I have not read the specific books they want removed in this round of activism, but I doubt very much they have, either. Excerpts of alleged pornographic content are presented without context or even page references. Even if these accusations are 100% correct, these books are not in our children's section. Some are apparently in Young Adult, but these people are demanding bans, not a cataloguing update. Can't they see the blatant hypocrisy of condemning Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter for censoring dissent and then demanding power to decide what others may access?
Image created in Canva
This campaign bears the hallmarks of internet hysteria spread by e-mail and Facebook, not serious criticism. We are not pushing smut to kids as these detractors accuse. In the end, it is the responsibility of the borrower to choose what to borrow. Parents, consider teaching your kids discernment instead of obedience to arbitrary rules and authoritarian prohibition. We all want to protect kids, but you need to give them tools to make wise choices instead of prohibiting everyone else from choosing at all.
Librarians are always willing to offer advice and suggestions to guide our patrons, but we cannot in good conscience censor anything based on either our own opinions or those of any subset of our community. The library is not an echo chamber. Freedom to read means freedom to access a wide spectrum of ideas. It does not matter whether these ideas are true, false, or disputed; whether presented as fiction or not; whether the reader might agree or not. The more contentious the topic, the more important it is to provide access to a range of opinions. Our district policy is (supposedly) to promote freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry while supporting a diverse population with diverse interests.
Libraries curate their collections based on community interests and analysis of the overall collection. New books are always being added, particularly if there is a new subject in public discourse. If trends suggest community interest in a given genre or topic, the collection tends to be enhanced to serve that interest. Even if interest wanes, most strive to maintain enough material to cover it for reference purposes. This is a core library function. What people read for fun or for research is not our business. We do not police the reader.
Turning the library collection into a political tug-of-war between ideologies does not promote morality or intellectual honesty. Instead, it opens the door to anyone using the power of the State to crush dissent. This is antithetical to the idea of liberty.
“When any government or church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, 'This you may not read, this you must not know,' the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man who has been hoodwinked in this fashion; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, whose mind is free. No, not the rack nor the atomic bomb, not anything. You can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.”
― Robert A Heinlein, If This Goes On—
EDIT: This assault from conservative Karens coincides with another battle against progressive censorship previously recounted here and here, now with updated images so everything looks a bit more cohesive!
